"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

If it is anaerobic and acidic, a very long time. Oak wood buried in peat bogs by Vikings has lasted longer than 2000 years. This area would not qualify for those conditions.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Ah, thank you Buz, thank you Asgara. Got me some reading to do...And just as a side note reccomendation, those might be something to keep in the links/reference section. They could certainly be of use when debating the historical accuracy of the bible.

According to Muslim theology the Exoduse helped Muslims (Moses taught Islam) and hurt pagans. Therefore your statement is either false or deliberately phrased to be misleading.Islam recognises the god of the Bible, the God of Moses, Jesus and the other prophets as Allah. So your second statement is also false.I don't know that Saudi Arabia DOES refuse to let anyone investigate and date the artifacts or the named areas. I DO know Ron WYatt had a habit of refusing to let experts examine his artefacts. I also know that accordign to AiG Ron Wyatt misrepresented the nature of the supposed "crossing site".

Moses did not teach Islam "The way to god by submission" His understanding of worship to the God Jehovah was different than this.He would have used the name Jehovah,as he didn't want to address any other gods at the time.Moses was born in 1593 B.C.E. and Mohammed who formed Islam under the writings of the Quran was born in Mecca around 530 C.E....A big difference in time periods.
Islam:The way to god by submission.In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. This sentence translates the Arabic text, above, from the Quran. It continues: Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds: The Beneficent, the Merciful: Owner of the Day of Judgement. Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help. Show us the straight path: The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not (the path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.The Quran, surah 1:1-7, MMP.The subjection of the God of Moses was to Jehovah (YWVH tetragrammaton) not Allah.God is a title,such as President.Satan was noted to be the God of this system.Each is individual.Each religion claims his God.The character of each God by each religion is what makes them so different,but there is only one true God according to the scriptures.Moses is recognised by Muslims,but it was the Israelite Jewish nation that was saved from the clutches of the following Egyptians by their God.
I haven't seen the video and wouldn't want to make opinions on it as yet,as i tend to believe the biblical account.The route of the exodus is not made clear in the scriptures.But if they find that the chariot wheels were pinned to the sea bed then i'll know that it was false.A bit like pinning peppered moths to tree trunks.False representation.

In case you didn't notice I stated "according to Muslim theology".
Given that qualifier my statement is true - whether Muslim theology is correct or not is irrelevant to the issue under discussion.And for your information "Allah" is not a name. "Allah" means God and according to Muslims Allah is the God of the Israelites.

>>In case you didn't notice I stated "according to Muslim theology".
Given that qualifier my statement is true - whether Muslim theology is correct or not is irrelevant to the issue under discussion.<<>>And for your information "Allah" is not a name. "Allah" means God and according to Muslims Allah is the God of the Israelites.<<That is fair comment.You were only stating what is common belief with the ideas that Muslims think Allah is the same god as the Israelite God.I think that indirectly this is relevant to the exodus of the Israelites.The type of people involved,how many roamed in the wilderness and their religious thoughts are relevant.It sheds light on why and where they could have travelled.It was all under the protection of their God Jehovah.There were many other races that travelled with the Israelites also,who became believers in their God.Allah is only assumed to be the same God.
Many do think that Jehovah (Yahweh) in Hebrew means Allah (God). But Allah corresponds, in Hebrew, to Elo?him, the plural of majesty of the word elohah (god). A superstition arose among the Jewish Israelites that prohibited them from pronouncing the divine name, Jehovah.(Yahweh) So it became their custom that while reading the Holy Scriptures, whenever they came to the name Jehovah, they pronounced Adho?nai, which means Lord. In some places they even altered the original Hebrew text from Jehovah to Adho?nai.This misrepesented naming has found its way into some religions of today.I read earlier that the exodus was proved to be false.Egyptians would have caught the fleeing Israelites,wrong terrain e.t.c.Can someone please direct me to these sites or any other references that look into this matter.

The Exodus - and Joshuah's conquest - have run into severe problems because of the archaeological data. It is not so much the terrain as the fact that after the expulsion of the Hyksos the Egyptians had quite strict border controls and could have stopped anyone leaving. THere is also an absence of the evidence expected if a very large body of people - as the usual translation of Exodus have it - were in Sinai for an extended period of time.A good starting point is _The Bible Unearthed_ by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

Thanks for the info.I will look into it,when i get time.
Exodus has been invalidated?! In who's eyes? Considering the route of the exodus and stationing of the people is not indicated clearly in the scriptures,its hard to see what they have proved to be wrong.I will say that archaelogical dating does not always go in line with the biblical chronology dates.So are you saying that others consider archaeology dating as the "master" over the bibles chronology? Is archaeology dating that accurate,that it is infallible? Is this not assuming only that one is better than the other?Border controls at the point of the Red sea would not have been strong enough to be affective against a mass of people marching in battle formation under the protection of God.A number upwards to a few million.
The Pharoah had reluctantly released the Israelites anyway.His border guards would have been imformed about the Israelites liberation.Ex 12:33
The Pharoah was made to recognise that God wanted his people to be released.This was why God bought the ten plagues upon Egypt,taking into consideration the Pharoah was bought up to have the belief that he was a god,and all of the Egyptians believed this to be the case.But he was only a man.He had to be shown that he was not a god.God displayed his power.
As the Israelites departed Pharoah had a change of heart and only then did he pursue the fleeing Israelites.

First I said "data" rather than "dating".When using the Bible as a source it must be remembered that it is a collection of works. They are not all equally reliable. The archaeological data too must be taken on its merits. But let us be clear - there is no evidence for the Exodus outside of the Bible - and nobody has even been able to assign a definite time - nor certainly identify the Pharoah's involved (the book of Exodus spans the reign of at least two). Given the magnitude of the events reported it is very unlikely that it would happen as described without leaving more evidence. Even losing so many people would have a major effect on Egypt.And this is where the border controls are important. Firstly to flee past the fortresses would be dangerous. And secondly there are records of border crossings. Do you really think a crossing of that size would go unnoticed and unreported ?

I heard that there is another video of them chariots, thought you all might be interested, I can't afford the video, or the CD Buzsaw is viewing, but it seems to parallel that there is chariots under the Red Sea in the Gulf of Aquaba, etc...P.S. When I get ahead a bit, it would be interesting to compare the two different archeological documentaries, showing them fossilized chariots of the Exodus, kinda interesting that this proves that Mt. Sinai has been cleverly hidden in Saudi Arabia all these years, even though Ron Wyatt documenting chariots remains to the Christian community, is located under the waters of the Gulf of Aquaba, and bringing to light the truth, hopefully the copywrighted maps inserted within the authorized kjv bibles will finally be updated to the true location of the Exodus crossing, and the true location of Mt. Sinai, no need to pretend that Mt. Sinai is in Egypt, beginning to wonder who owns the copywrights on these maps, interestingly no one owns the copywrights on the Words of the Authorized kjv, its not like the NIV, suppose thats why they don't like the Authorized Kjv, in that they don't own the copywright's thereof, its the only bible that doesn't have a copywright on God's Word's, so you can use the Authorize KJV to quote from, because its Gods Preserved Words clothed in English to the believer, the NIV is copywrighted cause they changed the wording therein, so it could be copywrighted (man's wording's), so you should ask permission to quote from it, cause its rewordings belong to some man that bought up the copywrights thereof, etc...I guess I do get a little to carried away, at times. I actually felt compelled to cut and pasted the correct map of the Exodus crossing into my bible, just because, suppose though each Authorized kjv has different maps and other stuff that makes this part copywrightable, but the publishers don't own the copywright on God's Word's, for they have been preserved and will not pass away, you can quote from the Authorized KJV without infringing on copywright law, you can not say this with the NIV, etc...http://www.prophecyclub.com/pc-meet.htmYou will be on the edge of your seat as you watch underwater robotic camera footage of the coral encrusted remains of Pharaoh’s chariots and army as they were strewn across the underwater land bridge in the Yam Suph (Red Sea). [EXO 14:25 And took off their chariot wheels...]You can order the Video! Call 785-266-1112[This message has been edited whatever, 05-03-2004]

Hi Buz, Yes of course it was, I never said it wasn’t, I said and I will continue to say that the sea crossing of the Exodus group was not at the Red Sea.Herodotus referred to the Red Sea, the Arabian Gulf and the Indian Ocean all as the ‘Red Sea’. The name was extended to include the Persian Gulf when the Greeks arrived there. But to discover where certain events happened when the ‘Red Sea’ was referred to, you have to read the context of the situation. In the context of the Exodus crossing there is nothing at all to suggest that the Israelites crossed what we know as the Red Sea, they crossed the Sea of Reeds, somewhere in the eastern delta of Egypt, and the Bible is quite explicit about this.So to discover which ‘Red Sea’ that the Exodus group crossed you need to read the Bible in context. The problem of the location of the Exodus sea crossing originated when the authors of the Septuagint rendered yam sup as Red Sea, and since early English translations were largely dependant on the Septuagint, the error has survived to this day. The 1962 edition of The Torah published by the Jewish Publication Society of America, has corrected this to read ‘Sea of Reeds’. (Eakin F. E., The Reed Sea and Baalism Journal of Biblical Literature, 86 p379)Old Testament introductions, or footnotes, normally point out a translation error by informing the reader that yam sup should be translated as ‘Sea of Reeds’ or ‘Reed Sea’. But the Red Sea was not crossed by the Israelites and the Hebrew Bible never claims that they did. There is no deceit on my part, the only deceit is by these desperadoes who are punting these dodgy books and videos. Red Sea in biblical context A great deal of the problem about identifying the sea crossing of the Exodus party is that supporters of the Gulf of Aqabah scenario are not reading the Bible in context. The term yam sup can be found over 20 times in the Hebrew Bible. Now, if the passages where the Red Sea is mentioned are taken in context, it is obvious that yam sup can be linked to three different locations: The Gulf of Aqabah, the Gulf of Suez, and the location of the Exodus crossing (Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible: p.636). Now we have three different locations Buzz, just as Herodotus had three different areas that he referred to as the Red Sea, and we need to examine the verses that mention yam sup to find out which of the three areas each Bible verse is concerned with.I think that the most important thing for Bible believers to do before giving their hard earned money to charlatans who peddle the Gulf of Aqabah nonsense, is to get their Bible’s out and actually look at what the verses that mention Red Sea are saying, read them in context, doing this will convince you that the Gulf of Aqabah cannot be the sea of the Exodus, there is one verse in particular that sinks this myth, but it can wait. Gulf of Aqabah Here are the verses from the Hebrew Bible that appear to be referring to the Gulf of Aqabah when mentioning yam sup . Exodus 23:31 "I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the desert to the River. I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you.This passage is an ideological redaction, it is to reflect the Solomonic period which had its southern boundary at the yam sup , (compare ‘the sea’ in 2 Chronicles 8:17), this reference only makes sense if the Red Sea referred to is the Gulf of Aqabah. The most obvious support for this verse being a late redaction, without going into source criticism too deeply, is the reference to the Philistines. The Philistines were not in this area before the 12th century BCE, much later than any of the proposed dates for the Exodus. Judges 11:16 But when they came up out of Egypt, Israel went through the desert to the Red Sea and on to Kadesh.There are some doubts over this passage, and a case can be made for this reference to relate to any of the three locations, but 11:12-26 suggest that the context of this chapter, with the mention of bypassing Edom and Moab, then the Gulf of Aqabah may be the best suggestion (IDB p. 633). 1 Kings 9:26 King Solomon also built ships at Ezion Geber, which is near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea.This reference undoubtedly means the Gulf of Aqabah, no other location is possible. Jeremiah 49:21 At the sound of their fall the earth will tremble;
their cry will resound to the Red Sea.In Jeremiah’s oracle against Edom he announces that there will be a cry from Edom’s inhabitants that will be heard as far away as the yam sup . The most logical choice here, given the mention of Edom, would be the Gulf of Aqabah.The other four references are all related to the period immediately following the Exodus from Egypt, when YHWH instructed the Israelites to go east via the yam sup to avoid confrontations. Numbers 14:25 Since the Amalekites and Canaanites are living in the valleys, turn back tomorrow and set out toward the desert along the route to the Red Sea.Numbers 21:4 They travelled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way. Deuteronomy 1:40 But as for you, turn around and set out toward the desert along the route to the Red Sea. Deuteronomy 2:1 Then we turned back and set out toward the desert along the route to the Red Sea, as the LORD had directed me. For a long time we made our way around the hill country of Seir. The Gulf of Suez Although still the subject of some debate between scholars, three passages that mention the yam sup have been linked to the Gulf of Suez: Exodus 10:19 the LORD changed the wind to a very strong west wind, which caught up the locusts and carried them into the Red Sea. Not a locust was left anywhere in Egypt.The plague of locusts are brought into the country by an east wind then removed by a counteracting west wind (the wind had been turned ‘hapak)’. The author claims that not a single locust was left in Egypt, they had all been carried into the Red Sea, or another suitably large body of water on Egypt’s border. The internal logic, and context, of the text suggests either the Gulf of Suez or even the Mediterranean Sea.It is generally agreed that the passage is really too unclear to identify the location of yam sup with any degree of certainty. A.H. Gardiner ( The Geography of the Exodus 1922, Paris) believes this passage to refer to the Mediterranean, or Lake Menzalah. M. Beitak ( ‘Comments on the Exodus’ in A. Rainey ‘Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period. 1987 Tel Aviv) suggests that this passage does refer to the sea of the Exodus, while U. Cassuto (Commentary on the Book of Exodus 1967: Jerusalem) claims this passage is a redaction that parallels the future event of the Egyptians being drowned in the ‘Sea’, and that it should not be taken literally.So this passage cannot be linked to any of the three locations with any real certainty, but the Gulf of Suez really does make the most sense. Exodus 13:18 So God led the people around by the desert road toward the Red Sea. The Israelites went up out of Egypt armed for battle.The writer here is offering an explanation as to why the Israelites did not take the most direct route into Palestine. The writer does not mention what would have been the real threat to the Israelites, namely the Egyptian border guards, he instead inserts a Philistine threat, which again shows redaction. Numbers 33:10-11 They left Elim and camped by the Red Sea. They left the Red Sea and camped in the Desert of Sin.Numbers 33 is the chapter that blows the Gulf of Aqabah fantasy right out of the water, one that is apparently ignored by the Bible believers who desperately want the ‘chariot wheels’ in the Gulf of Aqabah to prove the Exodus event.From the KJV:Numbers 33:8-10;And they departed from before Pihahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days journey in the wilderness of Etham, and pitched in Marah. And they removed from Marah, and came unto Elim: and in Elim were twelve fountains of water, and threescore and ten palm trees; and they pitched there. And they removed from Elim, and encamped by the Red sea. So it tells us right here that the Red Sea was not the scene of the Israelite sea-crossing miracle, the text informs us that that they passed through the midst of the sea, then , after another three days journey, they arrived at the Red Sea.So what will it be Buzz, did they pass through the Red Sea, and then three days later they arrived at the Red Sea, how does that work?This leads us on to the problem of the location of the yam sup of the Exodus crossing. Initially, the Red Sea can be ruled out, both because the Red Sea has no reeds, and because the lengthy route along the Gulf of Suez would have enabled the pursuing Egyptians to overtake the fleeing Hebrews (Eakin. p379)Yes Buzz, the lengthy route of over 120 miles as the crow flies (Noth, M., 1962 Exodus, SCM Press London p.108), how long would it take 2 million Israelites complete with their animals and carts to travel that distance? It is madness, unless you have a Bible believing public desperate for some scrap to support their faith, oh and a pocket full of dollars that they are keen to depart with.Further confirmation that the Gulf of Aqabah has nothing to do with the Exodus sea crossing:In Exod. 14:1-2 the Israelites are commanded to turn back and encamp within Egypt, the geographical picture is confirmed by the itinerary in Num. 33:1-49. In verse 6, Israel camped at Etham on the edge of the wilderness only then when Israel crosses the sea does she enter the wilderness (Childs, B. S., A Traditio-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition Vetus Testamentum 20 p409). After they had crossed ‘the sea’ they marched for three days into the wilderness of Etham, passed through Marah and Elim, and thence onwards to the shore of the yam sup , where they pitched camp. After that they marched on into the wilderness of Sin, but there is nothing here about crossing the yam sup Apparently the sea which the Israelites crossed was somewhere by the Bitter Lakes, and the yam sup mentioned here is the Gulf of Suez. (Snaith, N. H., Yam Sup: The Sea of Reeds: The Red Sea Vetus Testamentum 15 p396).Therefore the Bible itself tells us that the passing through the sea was not at the ‘Red Sea’, it happened before the Israelites arrived there, and the remaining references in the Hebrew Bible to yam sup all refer to the Sea of the Exodus. (Exod 15:4, 22; Dent 11:4; Josh 2:10; 4:23; 24:6-7; Pss 106:7-12, 22; 130.13-15; Neh 9:9-ll)It is pretty clear Buzz, the Israelites had barely began their journey when they were told to turn back BACK into Egypt. Exod.14:1-2 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites to turn back and encamp near Pi Hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea. They are to encamp by the sea, directly opposite Baal Zephon. Now, although Pi Hahiroth is unknown from other sources and therefore its location is still unknown, we do know for certain where Baal-Zephon is located.From Martin Noth (op. cit. p110: The place which we can locate most certainly is ‘Baal-Zephon’, by which a sanctuary is clearly meant. This sanctuary of Baal-Zephon, on whose site in the Hellenistic-Roman period a Zues Kasios was worshipped, lay on a low hill in the now uninhabited place ‘mahammadije’ on the western end of the coastal beach belt which separates the lagoon of what in classical times was called the Sirbonian Sea, the present ‘sebhat berdawil’, from the Mediterranean Sea. The region concerned is thus near to the Mediterranean coast east of the mouths of the Nile. If then in the closing clause of 14:2, which is obviously rather surprising but not necessarily secondary because of its address in the second person plural, it is expressly stressed that Israel is to camp ‘in front of ‘Baal-Zephon’, the scene is meant to be the neighbourhood of the western shore of the Sirbonian Sea. The further explanation ‘between Migdol and the sea’ also points to this. Migdol, which occurs as early as the Egyptian sources, lay on the usual route from the delta to Palestine, not far north-east of the Egyptian border fortress ‘Tr’ and is probably to be located at the present ‘tell el-her’ whereas in this context the ‘sea’ must almost certainly be understood to be the Mediterranean Sea,Geographically, the main objection to equating the sea of the Exodus with the Red Sea is that those places named in the Exodus itinerary prior to arrival at the yam sup would appear to be located in the eastern delta region of Egypt (Batto, B. F., The Reed Sea: Requiescat in Pace Journal of Biblical Literature 102 p28). Well any Hebrew Bible that you want to look at, you can use any Old Testament in the Christian Bible too if you want, will tell you the route of the Exodus and where the Israelites crossed the Sea of Reeds. You need to tell me what your route is before I can tell you the differences. I don’t need to see the video or read the book, the Bible pretty much tells me the area where the sea crossing was supposed to have happened. And another thing, Moses DID NOT choose the route, God chose the route and God told Moses to change the route and gave Moses the reasons why. You keep ignoring the Hebrew Bible's version of events Buz, I wish you would stick to it, it really is the greatest collection of ancient literature there is. Why are you ignoring the Bible’s itinerary, it tells us exactly what the route of the Exodus was? You really do have to check it out, and check out the Bible’s route, here are the verses that cover our purpose for you to look up:From Egypt to Kadesh is Exod. 12:37; 13:17-18a, 20; 14:2; 15:22,23,27; 16:1; 17:1; 19:1-2; Num. 10:12, 33; 11:35; 12:16; 14:25; 14:25; 20:1a, 22; 21:4, 10,11,12,13,16,18b,19a,19b,20,33;22:1.You can have your sea crossing at the Gulf of Aqabah if you really want to, but just don’t mix it up with anything in the Hebrew Bible.I do find this strange Buz, that you, a self confessed bible-thumpin fundamentalist would rather ignore God’s word in an attempt to support it. That a ‘chariot wheel’ in the Gulf of Aqabah is more important to you than the Bible account is difficult for me to comprehend.Take care,Brian.

Indeed they do, however, yam sup is translated as Reed Sea or Sea of Reeds, the Red Sea has no reeds, it was a mistranslation buz, get over it, the Septuagint is well-known for the translational errors in it, the Jews binned it because it was such a mess. Care to give a reference to support this? The route taken had nothing to do with Moses, God decided which way the Israelites would go. Which text indicates this? And the Red Sea is the only body of water in the area that can accommodate this? And a sea bed wouldn’t! It doesn’t even match with that Buz. The evidence is in people’s imagination Buz,and another site should be proposed because God’s word tells us roughly where the sea crossing was, and they crossed it BEFORE they arrived at the Red Sea. Dealt with this in previous post. This is Aqabah when taken in context, now take the Exodus narratives in context. Care to give a reference Buz, I have only ever seen yam sup translated as Sea of Seaweed, except in Jonah 2, where did you find this reference? I take it you are referring Jonah chapter 2:3-5?KJV For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me.Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.
The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head. ‘Weeds were wrapped’ is usually translated as ‘(sea) weeds were wrapped around.’ however this is wholly incorrect.First problem, if a plant was involved it would have to be some kind of vegetation that is found in the depths of the sea, as this is where Jonah is supposed to be, the ‘weeds’ here would NOT be the reeds from the marshy areas along the banks (Batto, page 32, see previous post for biblio details). There is no other reference in the entire Hebrew Bible where sup has been claimed as ‘seaweed’.Secondly, the image of Jonah being tangled up in seaweed is blatantly out of place when the imagery of the text is examined. All the other images the deep/abyss (tehom), floods, (more accurately ‘river’ nahar), Sheol, Underworld etc. all concern the mythical realm of chaos. Jonah’s word’s here are a thanksgiving hymn, compare it with Psalm 18, where similar imagery is presented.
Read in context then, Jonah’s ‘seaweed’ episode, linked to the imagery of non-existence and it parallelism with the mythic waters of chaos, the sup here should really be s-o-p, derived from the Semitic root sup (Batto page 34). Jonah’s sop means ‘to come to an end’, so sop which has also been used as ‘end’, ‘edge’, ‘border’, ‘destruction’ and ‘extinction’, leads to the confident conclusion that sup was a widely known term for the mythical waters of the Sea of Chaos.The ‘sup that was ‘bound’ around Jonah’s head is a symbol of impending death, which is also found by the motif of the binding cords of death and sheol, found in psalm 18:5-6: The cords of Death compassed me, and the floods of Belial assailed me. The cords of Sheol surrounded me; the snares of Death confronted me. from Hebrew Songs .Jonah’s image of death as a binding of the head may derive from funerary customs of shrouding the body for burial. In reality, Jonah’s ‘seaweed’ is not a reference to any physical ‘weed’; it is entirely inconsistent with the rest of Jonah’s thanksgiving hymn to suggest it was.Brian.

Neither the video nor I has said there was any wood left. The video explains that the coral formation had attached to the wheels and whatever wood was there is likely gone. The wood and metal would have likely supported the coral until the coral was strong enough to form the shape of some of the wheels and axles.

Hi Cromwell. If you viewed the video you could readily see that it would be neigh unto impossible to pin all the debris there is down there at this site, especially to have coral formations the shape of axles and wheels pinned down there. It just didn't happen. You should views the video. It's worth the small investment.

..........And a good stopping point is the site of the imperial evidence that the Biblical scriptures are correct about the Hebrews crossing the sea.